Saturday, June 27, 2015

I Love Rainbows. I Love People Living The Way They Want To Live. I Love That Love Is Gender-Neutral.

       I feel profoundly sorry for those who are disturbed by the SCOTUS decision legitimizing same-sex marriage.   South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley speaks for a lot of them when he said in reaction to the decision, "It has always been my position that the citizens of our state should define marriage, and not the federal government."  I suppose the attitude has some political value, but it seems to me a quaint and anachronistic appeal to states' rights that has been obliterated over time by the "Supremacy Clause" in the U.S. Constitution and the "Equal Protection Clause" in the 14th Amendment to that Constitution.  I don't get how same-sex partners in a consensual marital relationship should be treated any differently with respect to rights, benefits and protections than any other couple in a man-woman marriage.  These people pay taxes like everybody else. They're presumably bound by the same civil and criminal laws as everybody else.  They contribute in their own unique ways to their communities the same as everybody else.  So why does Jackley think their status as bona fide married couples should be subjected to scrutiny and approval by the state? The idea of it gets a rise out of my libertarian nature.  We're co-existing in a free country, folks.  Live and let live.
     The State of South Dakota expects same-sex married folks to participate in civil society with all the responsibilities that go with that participation. Considering that, where does the State of South Dakota get off denying them the privilege of calling themselves married?  Seems like Jackley should realize that if we expect these folks to bear the same burden of responsibilities as everyone else that we should give them the same status as other married couples, not regard them as a separate class of citizens.  Fair's fair, and Jackley's notion that South Dakota should be able to segregate in any way, shape, or form the very citizens it treats equally in every other respect is full of baloney.  
     Jackley may well have his personal and political imperatives in mind while publicly hand-wringing over the SCOTUS decision, but the reality is that the law of the land now relieves him of the burdens of dealing with the contentiousness of same-sex marriage considerations within the the State of South Dakota.  For that we should all be glad because it frees up our AG's time and energy to take up matters of real import in the pursuit of justice in this state.  


  1. you nailed it john..THANK YOU!

  2. Yes. It has nothing to do with religion or religious liberty: we are (sorry, folks!) a secular society, with a clear separation of church and state written in to the Constitution. Thus, all citizens - ALL CITIZENS - are [should be] considered free and equal with equal rights under the Constitution. Thus, gay marriage.